Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: CJU v HealthShare NSW [2021] NSWCATAD 372 Hearing dates: 27 October 2021 Date of orders: 15 December 2021 Decision date: 15 December 2021 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: A Christie, Senior Member Decision: (1) The Respondent failed to comply with s 10 PPIP Act/IPP 3 by not taking reasonable steps, either before or as soon as practicable after the collection of the Applicant’s personal information, to notify the Applicant of the matters in ss 10 (a) to (f) PPIP Act.
(2) The Respondent disclosed the Applicant’s personal information to SESLHD in a breach of s 18(1) PPIP Act/IPP 11 and neither the exception in s 18(1)(a) PPIP Act nor the exemption in s 27A PPIP Act are made out in relation to Conduct of Concern 2.
(3) The Applicant is to file and serve submissions as to remedy by 21 January 2022.
(4) The Respondent is to file and serve submissions as to remedy within 28 days after receipt of the Applicant’s submissions referred to in (3).
(5) The Applicant may file and serve submissions in reply to the Respondent’s submissions as to remedy within 14 days after receipt of those submissions referred to in (4).
(6) The matter is to be relisted for directions before Senior Member Christie as to remedies on 25 March 2022 at 10am.
Catchwords: ADMISTRATIVE REVIEW – personal information - disclosure of personal information relating to an inquiry and complaint to one agency by that agency to another agency in contravention of s 18 (IPP 11) of the Privacy and Personal Information Act 1998 – requirements for the exception in s 18 (1)(a) and exemption in s 27A of the Privacy and Personal Information Act 1998 – contravention of s 10 (IPP 3) of the Privacy and Personal Information Act 1998
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases Cited: AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2017] NSWCATAP 23
AOZ v Rail Corporation NSW [2014] NSWCATAP 76
BV v the Commissioner of Police (New South Wales) [2021] NSWCATAD 250
CDV v Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District [2016] NSWCATAD 302
CEU v University of Technology Sydney [2018] NSWCATAD 13
DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327
Department of Education and Training v GA (No 3) [2004] NSWADTAP 50
Department of Education and Training v ZR (No 2) [2009] NSWADTAP 44
DMW & DMX v NSW Rural Fire Service [2019] NSWCATAD 158
DMW and DMX v NSW Local Land Services [2019] NSWCATAD 128
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
EIG v North Sydney Council [2021] NSWCATAD 313
EMF v Cessnock City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 219
Insurance and Care NSW v EEH [2021] NSWCATAP 350
KT v Sydney Local Health Network [2011] NSWADT 171
Nasr v State of New South Wales (2007) NSWCA 101
Continue reading CJU v HealthShare NSW
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- CJU v HealthShare NSW [2021] NSWCATAD 372
- Case
- [2021] NSWCATAD 372
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the respondent breached sections 10 and 18 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 by failing to notify the applicant of certain matters and by disclosing the applicant's personal information to another agency without a valid exception or exemption. The applicant argued that the respondent's actions constituted a breach of their privacy rights under the Act.
In its decision, the Tribunal found that the respondent did not comply with section 10 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act by failing to notify the applicant of specific matters relating to the collection of their personal information. The Tribunal also found that the disclosure of the applicant's personal information to another agency was a breach of section 18 of the Act, as neither the exception in section 18(1)(a) nor the exemption in section 27A applied. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's actions were unlawful and constituted a breach of the applicant's privacy rights.
The Tribunal ordered that the respondent file and serve submissions as to remedy by a specified date, with the applicant then having the opportunity to respond. The matter was to be relisted for directions as to remedies before a Senior Member of the Tribunal. The orders made by the Tribunal addressed the breaches found and set out a process for determining appropriate remedies for the applicant.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The Respondent failed to comply with s 10 PPIP Act/IPP 3 by not taking reasonable steps, either before or as soon as practicable after the collection of the Applicant’s personal information, to notify the Applicant of the matters in ss 10 (a) to (f) PPIP Act.
(2) The Respondent disclosed the Applicant’s personal information to SESLHD in a breach of s 18(1) PPIP Act/IPP 11 and neither the exception in s 18(1)(a) PPIP Act nor the exemption in s 27A PPIP Act are made out in relation to Conduct of Concern 2.
(3) The Applicant is to file and serve submissions as to remedy by 21 January 2022.
(4) The Respondent is to file and serve submissions as to remedy within 28 days after receipt of the Applicant’s submissions referred to in (3).
(5) The Applicant may file and serve submissions in reply to the Respondent’s submissions as to remedy within 14 days after receipt of those submissions referred to in (4).
(6) The matter is to be relisted for directions before Senior Member Christie as to remedies on 25 March 2022 at 10am.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.